SDP's Universal Healthcare

In Today's news (http://www.todayonline.com/voices/s600-year-your-health-sdp), SDP proposed a universal payment of 600SGD every year by all Singaporeans from their CPF into a National Health Investment Fund - basically a national health insurance. (read the article to understand more)

I personally dun see the point of this. The 3M system (Medisave, MediShield and Medifund) is adequate, just require some tweaking and improvement to make it better.

WHAT SDP TRYING TO SOLVE:

- a peace of mind when come to spending for healthcare
- not to use CPF which is a retirement savings for hospital bills (including parents and children's bills)
- create a simpler healthcare system

SOLUTION BY SDP:

- All Singaporeans pay on average 600 SGD from CPF
- Those cannot afford to pay this yearly fee will be contributed by the Govt instead
- Treat healthcare as a basic right of Singaporeans
- Different co-payments for outpatient treatment of acute conditions and serious hospitalisation

All sounding good right (if you think very simply)?

Now read this article on the 3M, to understand what it does: http://www.healthxchange.com.sg/healthyliving/SpecialFocus/Pages/Understanding-Medisave-MediShield-Medifund.aspx

MY QUESTION/DOUBTS ON THE SDP'S PROPOSAL:

- What's the difference from what we are already paying for Medisave via our CPF account? The SDP idea may be over-compensating or even resembles too much of a socialistic mentality (resulting in many people paying a lot more than what they do now)
- Co-payment for serious conditions vs MediShield's insurance plans that help ppl to cover large bills (including up to 80% of hospitalisation fee); Co-payment sounds like we need to pay the cost sum...
- Those of low income group are now protected by Medifund. The SDP solution basically still requires them to pay for their national fund idea; if not then govt help them pay... Somehow something just doesnt feels right on this.
- the "simpler system" may turn out to be too "simplistic".
- SDP's idea did not touch on how they are solving the "used for children and elderly parent's bills" part. I cant supposed they want the children and retired people to contribute to this fund also right? PIAK! back to square one isnt it?

MY SUGGESTIONS :

- Don't take up the SDP idea. But improve the current 3M system
- Anyone who passed away, their medical debt that is borne by their children/next of kin should be halved (or waived, but waiving it will create problems, as people may just choose not to pay the bills); so to not burden them further than the hurt of losing their love one. Furthermore, its only fair since the medical care rendered did not really save the patient's life.
- Allow the usage of CPF OA funds to be used for serious medical problems or huge healthcare fees. What's the point of having savings for retirement when you can live longer enough to touch it? Health must come first, money can earn more later.
- Create a more comprehensive national scheme for retirement --> which I will touch on with another article some day.

-------

Conclusion:

The threat of ideas that sounds really good, may not really be that good. Political points can be gained with the Oppositions give populist ideas, but not all are valid or a true improvement on the current systems. What SDP had proposed is basically more of the same thing, just phrased differently. And if they are in power, they might implement this, and then end up having more worms in the can to catch than they expected.

So YOLO peeps~ =}

[RECOMMENDED READ] Level the playing field for locals and foreigners in employment?

I would like to recommend this read from The Online Citizen

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/08/level-the-playing-field-for-locals-and-foreigners-in-employment/

Its about the inequality between Singaporeans and Non-Singaporean when comes to employment and certain "rights". The implications is that, it would cause business owners to have preference in employing foreigners than Singaporeans.

It also created a question, which is always on my mind... And its NOT "What it meant to be a Singaporean" (as in being proud of being Singaporean)... BUT, "What differentiates us Singaporeans from non-Singaporeans?"

Although, it can also be questioned as "What it meant to be a Singaporean" (but as in, why the fuck Singaporeans arent treated like we from this country).

Seriously, I have no idea whats the diff between PR and Singapore Citizen... NS and Polls? Somemore?

[READ THIS] Who Holds the Sovereign Wealth of this Nation and Why? --- by Reform Party

This is a recommended read by me.
Its an article from Reform Party's website, which I find really good.

source: http://www.thereformparty.net/?p=283

Who Holds the Sovereign Wealth of this Nation and Why?
August 8, 2009 by admin

excerpt from the article:

Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) are not a new idea. According to Wikipedia, the term Sovereign Wealth Fund was first used by Andrew Rozanov in an article entitled, ‘Who holds the wealth of nations?’ in the Central Banking Journal of May 2005. A SWF may be broadly defined as a state-owned investment fund composed of financial assets such as stocks, bonds, property, precious metals or other financial instruments.
Theoretically one can distinguish two types of SWFs. The first, and the oldest form of SWF, is one set up to manage revenues from an exhaustible resource such as oil, or one which derives its assets from government budget surpluses. An example of one based on resources, and arguably the first SWF was the Kuwait Investment Authority, a commodity SWF created in 1953 from oil revenues before Kuwait even gained independence from Great Britain. A more recent example is the Norwegian SWF which was set up primarily to ensure that the wealth represented by Norway’s oil reserves was not squandered on current consumption but turned into financial assets which would benefit future generations.
Temasek could be said to be an example of the first type of SWF. It was set up in 1974 to hold stakes in the various government-controlled companies, such as DBS, SIA and Singapore Technologies, that had previously been held by the Ministry of Finance. The Temasek Holdings website states that “Our investments are funded through dividends we receive from our portfolio companies, our divestment proceeds, commercial borrowings, a maiden Yankee bond issue in 2005 and occasional asset injections from our shareholder, the Minister for Finance (Incorporated).”

continue reading here: http://www.thereformparty.net/?p=283